Community poll for HARM and Maverick on stations 4 and 6

[shagrat]

2 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Okay, but where does it say "casual gameplay results in unrealistic loadouts and equipment"?

Where does it say "loadouts" are restricted to timeframe specific limitations?

And then we need to get an understanding of what is unrealistic?

1.If the loadout is not documented?

2.If the loadout is possible, approved, but wasn't used operational (yet)?

3.If the loadout is possible with no altercations to physical model and systems representation in the simulation and controls in cockpit?

4.If a loadout is using weapons not designed for this airframe, but could technically be loaded (British bombs on US aircraft)?

 

My personal understanding is 3.

[Enduro14]

Dear lord....

[FoxOne007]

10 hours ago, ebabil said:

You are right. In ace combat, you may run out of fuel if you forget your CFT's or you may end up out of the runway if you don't deploy your dragchute

Then enjoy playing that while we will be flying here in a realistic USAF F-16

[shagrat]

16 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Touché and this is a big grime for me regarding DCS: there simply is not way in DCS' current state to do scenarios which are historically plausible. All the modules are over the place timeline wise and don't fit in with the ground assets we got and so on and so on.

 

But this really isn't an argument to get a questionable loadout in, right? Justify something wrong because there is so many other wrong things already.  If it was an argument at all, then for taking more care in the future to get modules, maps and assets in that are harmonized for realism and historical accuracy.

Yeah, but the whole point is, why are we so obsessed with enforcing realism on anyone playing DCS?

There are people flying fighter jets in air racing, others do fun flying, etc.

Why should there be a need to drastically restrict everything, especially if we can simply decide not to load a HARM or MAV on pylons 4 and 6? A simple Note on the loadout menu "not realistic on this station" could even inform us if we are not aware.

I would really like to know what's the reason behind the USAFs decision to not rig the two cables and enhance the mission capability? I mean a loadout with 2*HARM and 2*MAV would be pretty useful for SEAD/DEAD, I guess.

Edited February 22, 2021 by shagrat
Typos corrected

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, m4ti140 said:

Imagine the devs of an <insert a popular multiplayer FPS title here> added a DLC that gives players access to man portable nuke launchers for $59.99, completely ruining all multiplayer balance, and then told players that they can choose not to use them. That would go well, wouldn't it?
Yes, you can choose not to use them, but DCS is a multiplayer game and you don't exactly have a choice of not having it used against you. There are ways to limit weapons with scripts, but I don't think there's any tool to limit specific pylons.

I didn't see this before but just FYI it's a very good feature which has existed before. Here is one example:

 

Ignore everything but the Weapon Prefs you see in the menu in the first few seconds (7 seconds on) of the video. It's literally a checkbox for turning weapons on/off so you could disable OP weapons (or any weapon for any reason) in your match.

 

Sadly I don't think the video goes into the menu, but you can see it explained in the game manual:

 

https://www.gamesdatabase.org/Media/SYSTEM/Sony_Playstation_2/manual/Formated/Red_Faction_2_-_2002_-_THQ,_Inc..pdf

[FoxAlfa]

Guys capabilities are nice, but the limitation make a good simulation, so please enforce true limitation. People will learn to work around them, it will make them better pilots. 

[shagrat]

1 hour ago, m4ti140 said:

.And since most multiplayer servers have F-16s on both sides (because we have no redfor equivalent of F-16CM block 50 - we'd need something like MiG-29M or newer. No, Jeff is not equivalent) by keeping things realistic you put yourself at a disadvantage compared to people who don't care. Fly the aircraft a bit more, read up on tactics, then we'll talk.

That's at least honest. So it's not about "realism"... It is as so often, about disadvantages in a competitive multiplayer environment!

It is about denying other players options, that put you at a disadvantage.

The problem is that does not remotely take into consideration the PvE players flying missions against AI scenarios and single players that fly campaigns.

So to cater the needs of a small group that fears for their "edge" in competitive Multiplayer, the large majority of players would be restricted... That's why I like option checkboxes.

Edited February 22, 2021 by shagrat

[Exorcet]

5 minutes ago, shagrat said:

That's at least honest. So it's not about "realism"... It is as so often, about disadvantages in a competitive multiplayer environment!

It is about denying other players options, that put you at a disadvantage.

The problem is that does not remotely take into consideration the PvE players flying missions against AI scenarios and single players that fly campaigns.

So to cater the needs of a small group that fears for their "edge" in competitive Multiplayer, the large majority of players would be restricted... That's why I like option checkboxes.

 

Though in this case, it's debatable who is at a disadvantage. The 2 HARM loadout is lighter and less draggy. If a plane is lost and munitions are limited, the 2 HARM load out mitigates losses.

 

Then again, it would be a non issue with a loadout checkbox.

[shagrat]

1 hour ago, m4ti140 said:

Imagine the devs of an <insert a popular multiplayer FPS title here> added a DLC that gives players access to man portable nuke launchers for $59.99, completely ruining all multiplayer balance, and then told players that they can choose not to use them. That would go well, wouldn't it?
Yes, you can choose not to use them, but DCS is a multiplayer game and you don't exactly have a choice of not having it used against you. There are ways to limit weapons with scripts, but I don't think there's any tool to limit specific pylons.

Imagine buying a Shooter game to have some single player fun or play PvE with a buddy against some bots. Buying a couple add-on campaigns and then there is a patch that limits the ammo of your favorite weapon in a way, that it's totally useless, because some MP guys asked to have that restriction, instead of making an option to restrict them on the server side or change tactics in MP...

Talking DCS: what about switching Lasercodes on GBUs mid flight? What's about 10 AMRAAM Hornet BVR trucks? And so on? Fly in a like minded group and omit public servers if you can't stand a bit of creative leeway.

Ultra-realism has its place in DCS, but it isn't a dogma, just one end of the spectrum.

 

[shagrat]

10 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Though in this case, it's debatable who is at a disadvantage. The 2 HARM loadout is lighter and less draggy. If a plane is lost and munitions are limited, the 2 HARM load out mitigates losses.

 

Then again, it would be a non issue with a loadout checkbox.

That's a good point. But a mixed 2*HARM and 2*MAV would be a great DEAD option.

And I agree an option checkbox or optional synched loadouts restricted by the server to the mission builders templates would be the most flexible solution to mitigate.

[Oozler]

I play this game to be as accurate as security allows. If the block of F16 we have modelled in the game has a capability then we should as well. If the block of F16 we have in the game does not allow certain capabilities then we should not have it as well... This is very simple and I fail to see an issue. Do we want our cake, eat it AND have sexy time with the baker? I mean - come on, man! 

[AlexCaboose]

 

1 hour ago, shagrat said:

It does specify "hardcore realistic AND casual gameplay modes." Sounds to me like they're pretty well separated in intent.

37 minutes ago, shagrat said:

That's at least honest. So it's not about "realism"... It is as so often, about disadvantages in a competitive multiplayer environment!

It is about denying other players options, that put you at a disadvantage.

The problem is that does not remotely take into consideration the PvE players flying missions against AI scenarios and single players that fly campaigns.

So to cater the needs of a small group that fears for their "edge" in competitive Multiplayer, the large majority of players would be restricted... That's why I like option checkboxes.

 

It is entirely about realism to me, personally. ED said they're modeling a 2007 USANG F-16CM Bl. 50 and 4x HARMs were not able to be fired.

Edited February 23, 2021 by AlexCaboose

[Exorcet]

19 minutes ago, shagrat said:

That's a good point. But a mixed 2*HARM and 2*MAV would be a great DEAD option.

 

Yeah I agree with that. Making missions in DCS has actually made me wonder on quite a few occasions why aircraft don't have more load out options that would allow one flight to do the job of two. I guess a lot of it comes down to numbers. In real life air forces can throw out a lot of planes, so it matters less what each individual one can carry. According to Wiki, Package Q involved 78 Blue aircraft and 55 Red. This in addition to many SAM's. A mission like that in DCS could struggle to run on some PC's. However, one could compromise in simulation by adding more weapons to less planes.

[jojojung]

The problem is that the hornet was the only multirole aircraft for the navy, so they make everthing possible in case of loadout etc. because there was no alternative.

In the USAF many possible thinks, like put some wires to some pylons and it would all be working fine, was not implemented in peacetime because there was no big preasure to do this. Ecspecially in the Air National Guard.
In the USAF in 2007 was a F15 E which had a lot of more payload options, so there was no need to do the cable with pylon 4 and 6.

In case of a real war, were the 2007 F16 of the USANG would really go to combat, this cable fixes would be done quickly for sure.
So for the hornet guys its easy to say: "unrealistic". I think a hornet with 10 AIM 120 is more unrealistic in case of a real war, but it was tried on the hornet, because there was no F15E or anything else for the NAVY.
I think ED must find the balance for themselves but its importand to see the things from different viewpoints. Maybe the "unrealistic" killer argument is not the only and the best way to handle this well.

 

[randomTOTEN]

33 minutes ago, jojojung said:

I think a hornet with 10 AIM 120 is more unrealistic in case of a real war

this bad argument keeps coming up

the Hornet pylons are all wired to support launching all 10 weapons, the aircraft is approved to fly even in peace time with all 10 mounted, and there is evidence of operational aircraft flying this configuration for various reasons. There is absolutely nothing "unrealistic" about it other than choices for mission planning. In ED's terms, it is "Operationally Valid"

 

this is a terrible comparison and it needs to stop being used. they are completely different.

[Ignition]

40 minutes ago, jojojung said:

The problem is that the hornet was the only multirole aircraft for the navy, so they make everthing possible in case of loadout etc. because there was no alternative.

In the USAF many possible thinks, like put some wires to some pylons and it would all be working fine, was not implemented in peacetime because there was no big preasure to do this. Ecspecially in the Air National Guard.
In the USAF in 2007 was a F15 E which had a lot of more payload options, so there was no need to do the cable with pylon 4 and 6.

In case of a real war, were the 2007 F16 of the USANG would really go to combat, this cable fixes would be done quickly for sure.
So for the hornet guys its easy to say: "unrealistic". I think a hornet with 10 AIM 120 is more unrealistic in case of a real war, but it was tried on the hornet, because there was no F15E or anything else for the NAVY.
I think ED must find the balance for themselves but its importand to see the things from different viewpoints. Maybe the "unrealistic" killer argument is not the only and the best way to handle this well.

 

Yeah, agree. The F18 has 10 AMRAAM and 8 JSOW LOL.

I think the option for HARMS in 4/6 is good for a gameplay perspective and for non historic combat scenarios. I know it may not have the wire IRL but we're talking of a game with multiplayer, and I think there needs to be some compromise on all aircrafts. I don't think 4 agm88 would destroy the balance in PUBLIC multiplayer as 8 JSOW or 10 AMRAAM F-18.

People have the option to not load HARMS on 4/6 if they wish.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Ignition

[shagrat]

55 minutes ago, Oozler said:

I play this game to be as accurate as security allows. If the block of F16 we have modelled in the game has a capability then we should as well. If the block of F16 we have in the game does not allow certain capabilities then we should not have it as well... This is very simple and I fail to see an issue. Do we want our cake, eat it AND have sexy time with the baker? I mean - come on, man! 

The point is, there is no "need to fix" it, as it isn't broken. For your style of gameplay simply do not load any HARM or MAV on station 4 & 6 and you are 100% realistic, with no additional work needed from ED.

 

[Raisuli]

Now, about the UGM-133s on the wingtips...

[Dee-Jay]

3 hours ago, shagrat said:

I would really like to know what's the reason behind the USAFs decision to not rig the two cables and enhance the mission capability? I mean a loadout with 2*HARM and 2*MAV would be pretty useful for SEAD/DEAD, I guess.

 

 

Hi!

 

We are speaking USAF right? Ok ...

 

... lets calculate (even a simple approximation) your maximum combat radius and associated Bingo and minimum fuel for such a configuration and on a SEAD task.

Considering the center-line fuel tank (which has tendency to increase the risks of roll departure), you can consider a total fuel of about 9000lbs. And consider a safety fuel of about 1000lbs (for Blk50 IIRC), and a divert field located at about 50Nm away from the recovery airfield (considering good weather forecast).

 

Roughly estimated :

 

Safety fuel 1000lbs

Divert fuel 50*20 (or 50*15+250 for one G/A) =1000lbs

Joker 1000lbs

Usable fuel 9000 - 3000 = 6000lbs

 

Lets say Hi-Hi profile, 6000/15=400Nm => so about 400/8 = 50min of flight autonomy at M0.8 in best case scenario.

So 25Min ingress, 25min egress. No playtime, no re-attack, no evasive, no holding plan ... Combat radius about 200Nm.

 

For an IAF F-16I ... I could understand ...

For USAF ... well ... I had an idea.

 

And we are only speaking about the operational values of such configuration.

 

Note also that what you are calling "two cables" ... is far from the reality. If is more weight, more software (do you an any idea how much cost one line of software code like this?), more maintenance, airframe modifications, possible power supplies modification, certifications ... etc ... it is a matter of few millions of $$$. It is far far from being simply a matter of "two cables".

 

Of course ... (almost) anything is possible with $$$ ... we could also imagine USAF updates to carry MATRA MICA-IR, GBU-28 on stat 5 (center-line) ... etc ...

 

But actually ... that is not the question. This is maybe something to deal with ML and USAF but is not a matter of ED's decision (if they want an accurate F-16 simulation).

 

Regards.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Dee-Jay

[jojojung]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb randomTOTEN:

this bad argument keeps coming up

the Hornet pylons are all wired to support launching all 10 weapons, the aircraft is approved to fly even in peace time with all 10 mounted, and there is evidence of operational aircraft flying this configuration for various reasons. There is absolutely nothing "unrealistic" about it other than choices for mission planning. In ED's terms, it is "Operationally Valid"

 

this is a terrible comparison and it needs to stop being used. they are completely different.

I think you dont get the point of me. Nothing wrong to my statement. I know, In the Hornet all the options are possible because there was no real alternative when it was on service in the NAVY. Do you think the USAF doesnt have the capability to make the cable work for 4 and 6? But it was never introduced because there was no real use in peacetime because of alternatives.

Yes your absolutly right the Hornet can get 10 AIM120. Is this a usefull payload? I think with the engine of the hornet we do not discuss this here. Maybe there are some special cases or emergency conditions for the 10 AIM 120 Hornet - you never know - and exact therefor it was tried and it was put to a valid payload. Now think what the airforce would say if they need a 10 AIM 120 machine? Guess what, they pic the F15E. There is no guy who says, "remember the Viper can do this job too we only need to put some cables on" because there was a better airplane with more powerful engines to get this special job done. Would you agree sofar?

 

Thats why I said, the Hornet guys are in a more luckly situation, because the NAVY tried everything on the hornet that was thinkable, it was their only oppertunity. The Viper has a bigger brother and the need to maximize the skills of the Viper was not that necessary.  

 

Was the hornet ever used with 8 JSOWs? I think not, but as you said, its possible.

Edited February 23, 2021 by jojojung

[Hentai Paisen]

5 hours ago, AlexCaboose said:

Or, just hear us out, we play MP and want to see people taking realistic loadouts.
 

Who would read the NATOPs for the F-16? More like the -1, -34, CAF, etc. Regardless, the point stands - someone who is buying the F-16 SOLEY because it can carry 4x HARMs should be doing more research. There are plenty of reasons to buy, fly, and love the Viper. 4x HARMs isn't one of them. A quick google search of F-16s will how you that it just doesn't happen.

If you are playing DCS multiplayer on servers where people can and are taking unrealistic loadouts you aren't playing DCS realistically anyways.

[Jackjack171]

23 minutes ago, Hentai Paisen said:

Honestly I really wish ED would focus more on ADDING new features to the F-16 instead of REMOVING what little capability we have right now. How about you worry about this issue in two years after we have more than a third of the DED pages working and JDAMs/JSOWs/HTS etc. Anyone that wants to fly as realistically as possible should be doing so on private servers hosting their own missions with their own group of like-minded players. 

 

Here's how the last year of F-16 development has gone:

[10 paragraphs of F-18 updates and additions]

F-16: Rearming during INS alignment now breaks INS alighment.

Engine noise adjusted.

 

Personally even if carrying extra HARMs or Mavs isn't standard USAF procedure it makes a decent stop gap until the F-16 actually gets some of the capability it deserves.

Weather they remove/add them now or later, people will still complain. Better to be done with it either way!  It is still in beta so they can add or take away whatever.

3 minutes ago, Viper X3 said:

Maybe that's what ED wants us to focus on: arguing over 4 HARMS vs 2 HARMS. Hahaha

 

Apparently this is the most important topic about the F-16. 

 

The bigger picture is not with the HARM and Maverick itself. This is about those that want realism and those that want to arcade it up!

[randomTOTEN]

4 minutes ago, Jackjack171 said:

This is about those that want realism and those that want to arcade it up!

100% this.

There are probably 3 general sides to this controversy.

 

Those that think the extra HARM's are realistic, or it's an easy mod to support them.

Those that think the extra HARM are not realistic.

Those that care about how many HARM they can hang on their DCS:F-16C Blk 50.

[Biggus]

I can't vote for either option without more information, and I understand the reasons why there's no further information forthcoming to enable me to make my choice.

 

If there's substantiated evidence that even a handful of our block and year of Viper were wired for four 88s, then I'd like to see the option to use that loadout.  If the evidence is not conclusive, then I'd be inclined to leave it with the pair of 88s.

[Ignition]

2 hours ago, Jackjack171 said:

Weather they remove/add them now or later, people will still complain. Better to be done with it either way!  It is still in beta so they can add or take away whatever.

The bigger picture is not with the HARM and Maverick itself. This is about those that want realism and those that want to arcade it up!

 

DCS will never be a realistic scenario. People think because they can start fly and shoot in a simulator they can do it in real life. There are hundreds of variables that doesn't count in DCS but they do IRL.

It is the best simulator yes, but it will never be realistic. And its far from an arcade, so don't worry about that.